Comparison of two quantitative real time PCR assays for Rickettsia detection in patients from Tunisia.

• Published in: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• Main Authors: Abir Znazen, Hanen Sellami, Emna Elleuch, Zouhour Hattab, Laroussi Ben Sassi, Fatma Khrouf, Hassen Dammak, Amel Letaief, Mounir Ben Jemaa, Adnene Hammami
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003487; https://doaj.org/article/59301fa5f45d45ce9eceb2c4aaf4c625

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Quantitative real time PCR (qPCR) offers rapid diagnosis of rickettsial infections. Thus, successful treatment could be initiated to avoid unfavorable outcome. Our aim was to compare two qPCR assays for Rickettsia detection and to evaluate their contribution in early diagnosis of rickettsial infection in Tunisian patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Included patients were hospitalized in different hospitals in Tunisia from 2007 to 2012. Serology was performed by microimmunofluorescence assay using R. conorii and R. typhi antigens. Two duplex qPCRs, previously reported, were performed on collected skin biopsies and whole blood samples. The first duplex amplified all Rickettsia species (PanRick) and Rickettsia typhi DNA (Rtt). The second duplex detected spotted fever group Rickettsiae (RC00338) and typhus group Rickettsiae DNA (Rp278). RESULTS:Diagnosis of rickettsiosis was confirmed in 82 cases (57.7%). Among 44 skin biopsies obtained from patients with confirmed diagnosis, the first duplex was positive in 24 samples (54.5%), with three patients positive by Rtt qPCR. Using the second duplex, positivity was noted in 21 samples (47.7%), with two patients positive by Rp278 qPCR. Among79 whole blood samples obtained from patients with confirmed diagnosis, panRick qPCR was positive in 5 cases (6.3%) among which two were positive by Rtt qPCR. Using the second set of qPCRs, positivity was noted in four cases (5%) with one sample positive by Rp278 qPCR. Positivity rates of the two duplex qPCRs were significantly higher among patients presenting with negative first serum than those with already detectable antibodies. CONCLUSIONS:Using qPCR offers a rapid diagnosis. The PanRick qPCR showed a higher sensitivity. Our study showed that this qPCR could offer a prompt diagnosis at the early stage of the disease. However, its implementation in routine needs cost/effectiveness evaluation.